29-10 durability

[dirtybarry]

How long should a 29-10 last? And should it make any difference using handloads as long as they are within SAAMI specs?

 

[colt_saa]

Welcome to the Forum

With proper care and maintenance, it should last a lifetime+ for the average shooter

Like most any S&W

 

[dirtybarry]

Thank you.

Any guesses as to how many rounds in such a lifetime? And would hotter loads be reasonably expected to shorten the life?

 

[BigBill]

When I purchased my new 29-10 44Magnum I was told I had the best quality m29 ever made quality wise with all "10" upgrades in one m29.
She can handle the 44 Magnum loads. My s&w magnums do not eat my hotter reloads that's what my Rugers are for. My s&w 29-10 is a quality piece of machinery. I refuse to abuse them.

 

[dirtybarry]

When I purchased my new 29-10 44Magnum I was told I had the best quality m29 ever made quality wise with all "10" upgrades in one m29.
She can handle the 44 Magnum loads. My s&w magnums do not eat my hotter reloads that's what my Rugers are for. My s&w 29-10 is a quality piece of machinery. I refuse to abuse them.

That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I love this gun but like all my toys, I like to use them hard but not abusively. And I'm very fussy about maintaining all of my equipment.

Which is what I'm trying to find out about the 29-10. If the loads are kept below maximums, is there any reason why it shouldn't last? Or will they only last by using a middle of the road type load?

 

[Pef]

I've shot plenty of hot loads in my 29-10.

Your fillings will shake loose before the gun does.

It's not like shooting a Model 63, where you are going to go all day long. Trust me, I know.

 

[colt_saa]

Thank you.

Any guesses as to how many rounds in such a lifetime? And would hotter loads be reasonably expected to shorten the life?

50,000 100,00 or more, who knows.

The new frame design has only been with us since 1996. It is way too new to have learned what it's life is.

This is no different than your car. Floor it from every light and it will need more maintenance than if you slowly cruise away from the light.

Hotter loads (within SAAMI spec) will not significantly reduce it's life. It will increase the frequency at which a part or two needs maintenance

 

[BigBill]

I'm convinced my 29-10 will never wear out. Standard Magnum loads. No 296 powder it flame cuts the throats. I use 2400 powder for my Magnum loads and unique for my leadcast loads.

 

[dirtybarry]

Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem. I am rather disappointed but not enough to cancel the 6.5 629 that I'm picking up next week.

And this is why you should always were shooting glasses.

The forcing cone's forcing days are over.

Yes, that is a crack in the frame.

 

[Dale53]

I have an early Model 29 with an 8 3/8" barrel. I use a 250 gr. Keith home cast bullet. My practice load is 23.0 grs. of H110/296 and my hunting load is 24.0 grs. The maximum load (which I never used) is listed as 25.0 grs.

I now have over 10,000 rounds through my Smith and it is still as tight as when I bought it. I have never downloaded it below 23.0 grs. of H110 as I have had .44 Specials for that job.

On the other hand, I had an acquaintance who actually wore his Smith out until it was loose as a goose with hot loads of, of all things, Red Dot.

I do not believe it is wise to shoot heavier bullets than the 250 gr. Keith in a Smith. I have a number of large whitetail deer to my credit and have never recovered a bullet (I've shot at least two deer lengthwise with total penetration).

My hunting load chronographs at 1300+ fps. and I see no real benefit in going higher. Plus my loads are easier on both the shooter AND the revolver.

Just a thought or two...

FWIW
Dale53

 

[BigBill]

If ya feel the need for the heavy muzzle blast that's what the RSBH and the RSRH is for. I feel all the s&w should go to the range often with standard loads. I purchased the cor-bon ammo but my Rugers eat that.

It appears the throat torch cut first. The frame followed.

My ccw reloads in my redhawks are Speer 200gr jhp pumped over 1,400 fps using 2400 powder.

 

[BC38]

Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem...

Is that due to the round count, due to you not being the original purchaser, or due to your using reloads?
I'd suspect their issue is the reloads, but inquiring minds want to know....

 

[BruceM]

Well, dirtybarry, I have to admit that I've never seen a Smith .44 Magnum fail in that manner. Just what was the handload you were using when the failure occurred anyway?

I do not believe it is wise to shoot heavier bullets than the 250 gr. Keith in a Smith.

^^^^^^This^^^^^

Bruce

 

[SLT223]

How long should a 29-10 last? And should it make any difference using handloads as long as they are within SAAMI specs?

WAAAAAYYYYYYY longer than you and any amount of trigger pulling you are capable of.

I shoot tons of 44 and this is the caliber that got me into reloading. My favorite target load is basically 44 Special in 44 Magnum brass. Typically this is 5-7 grains of fast burning powder behind a 200ish gr bullet. It's super easy on the brass and gun (specifically the forcing cone). That being said, I will reiterate my first comment: The gun will out last you no matter what.

Don't bother with reloading unless you like tinkering with stuff...plus it would leave more components for me ....just kidding

 

[SLT223]

Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem. I am rather disappointed but not enough to cancel the 6.5 629 that I'm picking up next week.

And this is why you should always were shooting glasses.

The forcing cone's forcing days are over.

Yes, that is a crack in the frame.

So, how does that happen?

At first glimpse, and maybe it's my monitor, that forcing cone looks worn pretty thin.

 

[BigBill]

296 powder flame cuts in s&w.

 

[BruceM]

296 powder flame cuts in s&w.

Not hardly!

All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.

The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.

If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.

Bruce

 

[Carrier]

Not hardly!

All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.

The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.

If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.

Bruce

This is the most logical response so far.

 

[American1776]

I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:

We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.

There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.

Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.

Just my opinion.

 

[S&WForty]

Post #20 is an interesting eye opener. I often see in 44 Magnum threads how today's factory loads are tame compared to the old days. The only factory loads I have found in my local shopping are 180 gr Remingtons and 240 grain Winchesters. They kick differently, but both kick really hard. Are they really weaker than old days' factory loads, or is it nostalgia talking? If they really are less powerful and I combine that with the 29-10 "improvements" stated in post #20, shouldn't a 29-10 do just fine on a diet of just those Rem's and Win's?

 

[Laketime]

I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:

We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.

There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.

Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.

Just my opinion.

The problems you mentioned was a result form using non factory max loads for silhouette shooting.Prior to the mid 80's you seldom heard of any problem with the 29's or the 57's.

 

[American1776]

Post #20 is an interesting eye opener. I often see in 44 Magnum threads how today's factory loads are tame compared to the old days. The only factory loads I have found in my local shopping are 180 gr Remingtons and 240 grain Winchesters. They kick differently, but both kick really hard. Are they really weaker than old days' factory loads, or is it nostalgia talking? If they really are less powerful and I combine that with the 29-10 "improvements" stated in post #20, shouldn't a 29-10 do just fine on a diet of just those Rem's and Win's?

From what I understand, .44 special and .45 colt have been 'downloaded' significantly in their factory loadings. The reason: There are very old guns in these chamberings still around, and factory ammo companies don't want the liability of some idiots who WILL put a hot factory .44 spl. in an old non-heat treated revolver and develop the new name of 'stumpy'.

I do think that the original .357 magnum load was a 158 gr. bullet @ 1,500 ft./s. That is significantly hotter than standard factory .357 magnums today.

I really don't know if factory.44 magnums are watered down today.

 

[dirtybarry]

Sadly, it looks like this saga is coming to an end. I've just heard back from Jeff Crozer at S&W who had this to say:

Good day,
Smith & Wesson will not cover any firearms that fail when reloaded ammunition is used. The failure you describe was probably the fault of the ammo and not the firearm.
I don't know how to resolve this issue, perhaps we could replace the revolver at cost? I will contact the warranty center to review and discuss our options.
FYI, Mario has been retired for 6 months.
Regards,
Jeff

Jeffrey A. Croze
International Sales Manager
Smith & Wesson Corp/Thompson Center Arms

So there you have it, if you use reloaded ammunition in a S&W product, you are on your own.
And their "lifetime" service policy is only good until you use live ammo.
The part I don't get is that in today's litigious society, why they wouldn't put those things in great big bright red letters everywhere.
Oh well, I guess I've learned a valuable but expensive lesson.

 

[dirtybarry]

Is that due to the round count, due to you not being the original purchaser, or due to your using reloads?
I'd suspect their issue is the reloads, but inquiring minds want to know....

Yup, they simply will not cover any gun that reloaded ammunition has been used in. I wish I had known that before buying one of their gun shaped paperweights.

 

[dirtybarry]

Not hardly!

All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.

The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.

If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.

Bruce

Thanks, this sounds pretty plausible. Unfortunately S&W has dismissed any warranty because of the use of reloaded ammunition.
What surprises me is that no warranty centre has actually looked at or touched this gun.
Considering it's something that could have maimed or killed someone, I would have thought they would have been more interested.

 

[Mr. O]

Yup, they simply will not cover any gun that reloaded ammunition has been used in. I wish I had known that before buying one of their gun shaped paperweights.

I've been reloading for 46 years, and I have known all that time that reloads void warranties. I also shoot reloads almost exclusively. I'm careful when I load and I stay away from the upper limits. Have never had a problem with 10's of thousands of rounds fired. I can't think of any other 'paperweights' I'd rather use in competition or EDC.

 

[Carrier]

Well I really like the 686-6 that I have and have put a ton of factory 357 through it. I'm starting to reload now and am really concerned about loading close to upper limits.
I am ready to get a 44 magnum and now have to rethink if the 629 would be a wise choice. I'm not getting into any bashing here at all but now I may need to take another look at the Redhawk.
I enjoy shooting lots of full magnum loads.
One of the reasons for getting into reloading was to be able to do this cheaper.

 

[dirtybarry]

I've been reloading for 46 years, and I have known all that time that reloads void warranties. I also shoot reloads almost exclusively. I'm careful when I load and I stay away from the upper limits. Have never had a problem with 10's of thousands of rounds fired. I can't think of any other 'paperweights' I'd rather use in competition or EDC.

Well, you've got me by about 45-1/2 years and although I suspected as much, I've never found any manufacturer to come right out and say that using reloads voids warranties.
That seems rather strange but no matter, it's too late now.
I think the saying goes, "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
Live and learn.

 

[Fishinfool]

If you look into it, you will find most all manufacturers warn against using reloaded ammo. They simply have no control over what a person concocts on the loading bench. That's why the SAAMI exists, to set guidelines for safe ammo that the major firearms manufacturers build their products to match up with.

COULD have been a failure of your gun due to a defect, but I am betting that the combo of being am inexperienced reloader, along with your original questions about how hot you could load for your new model 29, and a lack of any info about what your loads were, pretty much answers the question of what happened. Sorry. JMO.

Larry

 

[BC38]

I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:

We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.

There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.

Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.

Just my opinion.

I don't know that anyone will flame you, but I for one will agree with your philosophy on shooting a steady diet of lighter loads for practice. I like to load slightly "warmer" 44 special recipes in 44 magnum cases for target shooting. Still plenty of BANG and KICKS to be had that way, and its easier on me, easier on the gun, easier on everyone else at the range and even a little easier on the wallet (a couple of cents per round less power).

Shooting a few fire breathers for fun every now and then - or even a few every session for that matter - is unlikely to hurt the gun in your lifetime. But for my money, shooting thousands of rounds that are reloaded at the max upper limits just creates too much risk. All it takes is one that is heavily overcharged - or even a few hundred that are just a little overcharged - and the fatigue can cause a catastrophic failure like what happened to the OP.

Just a thought.